It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok
Not my problem you live in a paranoid nanny state.
A paranoid nanny state who seems to think chemical weapons, and materials in a bunker complex doesn't seem to matter very much.
But if that was here ?
Be a totally different story. Making the nightly news.
IF there was REALLY active Chemical weapons there, then WHY the hell would or coalition forces not have picked up on it?
Quote Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
originally posted by: neo96
Because they were fighting a war ?
originally posted by: crazyewok
Im not denying they had WMD pre 1991.
Im arguing after the 1st gulf war they didn't make anymore and the remaining WMD just decayed into inactivity. Hence why they didnt find anything in 2003.
...
16.32
Isis jihadists have seized a chemical weapons facility built by Saddam Hussein which contains a stockpile of old weapons, State Department officials have told the Wall Street Journal:
Quote U.S. officials don't believe the Sunni militants will be able to create a functional chemical weapon from the material. The weapons stockpiled at the Al Muthanna complex are old, contaminated and hard to move, officials said.
Nonetheless, the capture of the chemical-weapon stockpile by the forces of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham, known as ISIS or ISIL, the militant group that is seizing territory in the country, has grabbed the attention of the U.S.
"We remain concerned about the seizure of any military site by the ISIL," Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, said in a written statement. "We do not believe that the complex contains CW materials of military value and it would be very difficult, if not impossible, to safely move the materials." ..
The war they were fighting WAS OVER WMD's! They were there to FIND THEM! Not just shoot guys.
Contents The resolution cited many factors to justify the use of military force against Iraq:[2][3]
Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire agreement, including interference with U.N. weapons inspectors.
Iraq "continuing to possess and develop a significant chemical and biological weapons capability" and "actively seeking a nuclear weapons capability" posed a "threat to the national security of the United States and international peace and security in the Persian Gulf region."
Iraq's "brutal repression of its civilian population."
Iraq's "capability and willingness to use weapons of mass destruction against other nations and its own people".
Iraq's hostility towards the United States as demonstrated by the 1993 assassination attempt on former President George H. W. Bush and firing on coalition aircraft enforcing the no-fly zones following the 1991 Gulf War.
Members of al-Qaeda, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq.
Iraq's "continu[ing] to aid and harbor other international terrorist organizations," including anti-United States terrorist organizations.
Iraq paid bounty to families of suicide bombers.
The efforts by the Congress and the President to fight terrorists, and those who aided or harbored them. The authorization by the Constitution and the Congress for the President to fight anti-United States terrorism.
The governments in Turkey, Kuwait, and Saudi Arabia feared Saddam and wanted him removed from power. Citing the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998, the resolution reiterated that it should be the policy of the United States to remove the Saddam Hussein regime and promote a democratic replacement.
The resolution "supported" and "encouraged" diplomatic efforts by President George W. Bush to "strictly enforce through the U.N. Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq" and "obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq."
The resolution authorized President Bush to use the Armed Forces of the United States "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate" in order to "defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.
"
originally posted by: Swills
originally posted by: Brotherman
a reply to: JJRichey
Also wanted to remind you (not that these are pleasent to remember)
Do you remember all the chlorine bombs that guerillas used to use in ramadi and fallujah? Those are chemical weapons too are they not? I mean granted they are not exactly military manufactured but still none the less are chemical in nature and highly lethal and those are apparently easily made with materials in high abundance just laying around.
Of course, anytime you use a chemical as a weapon its considered a chemical weapon. A good example of this is white phosphorous. When used to just light up an area it is not considered a chemical weapon, but use it against human beings for the purpose of killing them it then becomes a chemical weapon. Military grade or not, a weapon is a weapon.
originally posted by: MALBOSIA
Because they are lying through their teeth to fabricate a reason to get the war machine rolling again.
Was it Westley Clark that said "when the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail" ? Somebody said that.
Something has the US government (more likely the banking cartels that employ the USG) spooked to the point of desperation.
originally posted by: WCmutant
Think about it...
1. 2003/2004 Chemical weapons aren't found!
2. 2006 Iraqi General writes book claiming in 2002 Saddam moved his chemical weapons to Syria
3. 2012 ISIS and al-CIA-DA trained at secret Jordan base to launch assault in Syria
4. 2013 we aid Syrian Rebels to overtake chemical weapons stores in Syria that were formerly Saddam's
5. 2013 sarin gas used by Syrian Rebels (including al-CIA-da) and blamed on Assad (prob. from Saddam's Syrian storage)
6. 2014 ISIS (ISIL) moves through Iraq retaking many cities and now claims "they have Saddam's WMDs!"
Hmmm, seriously. The WMDs didn't come from Iraq, but from Syria even though they were originally Iraq's/Saddam's.
This makes the most logical sense.
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: DelMarvel
originally posted by: neo96
originally posted by: DelMarvel
Also from the OP's link:
17.05 The Chemical Weapons Convention, which Iraq joined in 2009, requires it to dispose of the material at Al Muthanna, even though it was declared unusable and "does not pose a significant security risk"
Declared by who ?
By the same people who didn't see the 'fall' of Iraq coming.
The point being that if we're going to accept the credibility of the OP's article reporting that the stockpile was found why aren't we accepting the credibility of the article when it reports the stockpile is unusable?
Confirmation bias?
The people who run this country have no credibility as they DID NOT see the events in Iraq coming.
or in Syria, or in Libya.
Because of the people who are saying they are 'unusable'.
originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: crazyewok
IF there was REALLY active Chemical weapons there, then WHY the hell would or coalition forces not have picked up on it?
Because they were fighting a war ?
Quote Stockpiles of chemical munitions are still stored there. The most dangerous ones have been declared to the UN and are sealed in bunkers.
After 14 YEARS.
AFTER 14 YEARS.
No one ever bothered to go look ?
As was stated earlier in the thread.
That is a question of two US administrations.
And the Iraqi government.
Because common sense say that should have been the first thing done.